SCIENCE vs. EVOLUTION

Chapter 2b:

The Big Bang and Stellar Evolution

Why the Big Bang is a fizzle and stars cannot evolve out of gas

2 - MORE FACTS WHICH BURY THE THEORY

MORE PROBLEMS FOR STELLAR EVOLUTION

1 - According to the theory, older stars should have more
heavy elements because they are continually making them. But the so-called
"older stars" have been found to have no more heavy elements than the so-called
"younger stars." All stars, from "young" to "old," have the same
amount of heavy elements.

2 - The theory says that gas floating in interstellar space
is leftover from the Big Bang, and can only consist of hydrogen and helium. But
*Rubins has shown that this is not true.Extra-galactic gas has a variety
of heavier elements in it.

3 - The theory says that the super-fast particles, hurled outward by the Big
Bang, were evenly radiated. Yet, as scientists have noted, a perfectly
smooth cosmic explosion would only have produced perfectly smooth, increasingly
rarified (ever farther apart) particles. So the very existence of stars
disproves the theorized original giant explosion.

4 - The theory requires a continual rush of particles
outward—leaving nothing inside this outer parimeter of outflowing matter. Yet there are stars and galaxies all through space, not just at the
outer edge.Even if clumped gas could have formed any stars,
everything would continue to be hurled to the thin, outer edges of space—with an
expanding center containing nothing.

5 - According to the theory, the farther we look out into
space, the farther back into past eons of time we are gazing. This means that the farthest stars and galaxies ought to be the youngest. Yet research
reveals the farthest stars are just like those nearby.

6 - Angular momentum is another serious
problem. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit
stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could the super-fast
linear (straight line) motion, started by the supposed Big Bang, have changed
into rotation (spinning or revolving motion) and revolutions (orbiting
motion)? How could angular momentum exist—and in such
perfectly balanced orbits throughout space? There is no possible way that
floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects, like
stars, planets, and moons.

7 - Inward pushing gas would not change to a rotating star.
According to the theory, stars were formed by the "inward gravitational collapse
of hydrogen gas clouds." If so, why do the resultant stars rotate? Some stars
rotate very fast. If ten people in a circle pushed marbles in toward a common
center, the marbles would not begin rotating or circling after they reached it.

8 - Matter-origin theories cannot explain why stars spin. The
theorists tell us that stars somehow started spinning; but, with age, they slow
down. Yet some stars spin faster than either "younger" or "older" stars. Some
spin once in less than an earth-day. The fastest, Hz 1883, has a spin period of
only 6 hours.

9 - Some stars orbit backward to that of other
stars. The theorists cannot explain this.

10 - There are high-velocity stars that are traveling far
too fast to accommodate the evolutionary theories of matter and stellar
origins.

11 - If the Big Bang theory were true, all stars would
move in the same direction; butstars, clusters, and galaxies are moving
in various directions opposite to one another. (More about the expanding
universe theory later.)

12 - Evidence is accumulating that the entire universe is
rotating! This is angular momentum on the most gigantic of proportions.
Yet the Big Bang should only have produced linear movement outward from it.

13 - Theorists are deeply bothered by, what they call, the "lumpy" problem. The universe is "lumpy"; that is, it has stars,
planets, etc. in it. Yet none should exist if the Big Bang theory were true.
They argue fiercely over these problems in their professional journals, while
assuring the public the theory is accepted by all astrophysicists. They consider
this to be a major unsolved problem.

"As IBM’s Philip E. Seiden, put it: ‘The standard Big
Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes the universe
started out as a globally smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply
the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a
cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any
kind.’ No galaxies, no stars, no planets, no nothing. Needless to say, the
night sky, dazzling in its lumps, clumps, and clusters, says otherwise. How
then did the lumps get there? No one can say."—*Ben Patrusky, "Why is the
Cosmos ‘Lumpy’?" Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.

14 - The universe is full of stars, with relatively little gas. But it
should be the other way around: full of gas and no stars. The Big Bang
should have produced a "homogeneous" universe of smooth gas ever flowing outward
with, at best, almost no "inhomogeneities," or "lumps" such as stars and island
universes.

15 - The universe is full of super clusters. These
are the biggest "lumps" of all. It has recently been discovered that the
galaxies are grouped into galaxy clusters, and these into still larger super
clusters. The "Big Bangers," as their colleagues call them, excuse the problem
by saying that "gravity waves" produced the galaxies. But gravity, in any form,
could not press floating hydrogen and helium into a star or planet out of gas,
make a marvelously organized disk network of stars, or produce the precisely
balanced spinning and orbiting of planets and stars.

"The main efforts of investigators have been in papering
over holes in the Big Bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever
more complex and cumbersome . . I have little hesitation in saying that a
sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory. When a pattern of facts
becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely
recovers."—*Sir Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang Theory under Attack," Science
Digest, May 1984, p. 84.

16 - Solar collapse, not nuclear fusion has been found to
be the cause of solar energy. But that would undercut the entire theory of the
Big Bang. We will briefly summarize the data here. You will find it
discussed more fully (along with additional quotations) in the chapter,
Origin of the Stars, in our 3-volume set on our website. It is also
partially referred to in "6 - Solar Collapse" in the Age of the Earth
chapter in this paperback.

There is evidence that our sun "shines," not by hydrogen explosions,
but by solar collapse. Yet stellar evolution is keyed to the fact that stars are
fueled by (shine because of) hydrogen explosions (nuclear fusion). The
amount of mass/energy our sun would have to lose daily amounts to 4 million tons
[3.6 million mt] a second. The problem is the fusion process should produce
lots of sub-atomic particles called neutrinos, and each square inch of
earth’ssurface should be hit each second by a trillion neutrinos.
Scientists have neutrino detectors in place and have searched for them since the
mid-1970s, but hardly any arrive from the sun. This fact alone would
appear to disprove the hydrogen theory of solar energy (cf. *J.H. Bahcall,
Astronomical Journal, 76:283, 1971). *Corliss, the world leader in tracking
down scientific anomalies, considers the "missing neutrinos" to be "one of the
most significant anomalies in astronomy" (*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies,
Cosmos, 1987, p. 40). It was not until the 1930s that the nuclear theory of
starlight was developed by *Hans Bethe and *Carl von Weizsacker. Yet it remains
a theory. In contrast, there is strong evidence pointing to solar collapse as
the true cause of solar energy.

The scientific basis for solar collapse, as the source of
solar energy, was developed over a century ago by two brilliant scientists:
Hermann von Helmholtz and Lord Kelvin. If each star is slowly contracting,
great amounts of energy would be constantly released. But evolutionists
cannot accept this possibility, because it would mean the universe (and the
earth) is much younger. Nuclear fusion would mean billions of years for a star’s
life; solar collapse only a few million. A change in the radius of our sun
of about 80 feet [24.27 m] a year is all that would be necessary to produce our
sun’s actual energy release. This is a radius shrinkage of only .009 feet [.27
cm] per hour.

Some scientists have found evidence of solar collapse. One major study
was done by *John A. Eddy and *Aram Boornazian (*New Scientist, March 3,
1983, p. 592). The basis for this is an analysis of solar transit
measurements, made at the Royal Greenwich Observatory since 1836 and the U.S.
Naval Observatory since 1846. It was calculated that the sun is shrinking at the
rate of 5 ft/hr in diameter (0.1% per century, 2 arc-sec/century). They also
analyzed solar eclipses for the past four centuries. A separate report by
*Ronald Gilliland confirmed the *Eddy and *Boornazian report (*op. cit., p.
593)

"The sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century . .
corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour [15.24 dm]."—*G.B.
Lublihn, Physics Today, Vol. 32, No. 17, 1979.

The above findings would indicate that our sun’s output of
radiant energy is generated by this shrinkage and not by hydrogen explosions
(thermonuclear fusion) deep within it. As already mentioned, if hydrogen was
the solar fuel, we should be receiving a very large quantity of neutrinos; yet
almost none are detected.

Jupiter is also apparently contracting, because it is giving
off more heat than it receives from the sun. A surface contraction of just
one centimeter per year would account for the measured heat flow from Jupiter.
A similar situation exists for Saturn.

"Jupiter . . radiates twice as much energy as it absorbs
from the sun through a contraction and cooling process."—*Star Date radio
broadcast, November 8, 1990.

"Saturn emits 50% more heat than it absorbs from the
sun."—*Science Frontiers, No. 73, January-February 1991.

These facts are known; but, in order to defend
evolutionary theory, the decision has been made to stick with solar fusion
(hydrogen explosions) as the cause of solar energy and sunshine.

"Astronomers were startled, and laymen amazed, when in
1979 Jack Eddy, of the High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado,
claimed that the sun was shrinking at such a rate that, if the decline did
not reverse, our local star would disappear within a hundred million
years."—*John Gribbin, "The Curious Case of the Shrinking Sun," New
Scientist, March 3, 1983.

"Geological evidence, however, indicates that the terrestrial crust [our
earth’s rock strata] has an age of several billion years, and it is surely to be
expected that the sun is at least as old as the earth . . We must conclude that
. . another source must be responsible for most of the energy output of a
star."—*Eva Novotny, Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors
(1973), p. 248.

Summarizing solar collapse:
The evidence that hydrogen explosions (thermonuclear fusion) is the cause of
solar energy (sunshine) would be a great abundance of neutrino radiation. But
that evidence is missing. The evidence that solar collapse (gradual shrinkage)
is the cause has been definitely found. Evolutionists reject solar collapse as
the cause, (1) since it would mean our sun and the universe could not be more
than a few million years old; (2) their cosmology theories would be wrong and
(3) the Big Bang theory would be gutted.

Is there no evidence that supports the Big Bang theory?
Evolutionists are able to point to only TWO. Here they are:

[1] BACKGROUND RADIATION

NOT EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG

The fact—There is a faint amount of heat radiating throughout
outer space. It is called background radiation. Since it comes uniformly
from all directions, it is believed to exist throughout the universe. It is
a very small amount of "heat": in fact, only 2.73o K above absolute zero (0o K, which is -270 o C
or -454 oF).

The theory—Background radiation (also called microwave
radiation), first discovered in 1965, is said to be the single, best evidence
that the Big Bang occurred. It is said to be the leftover remains, the last
remnant, from the Big Bang explosion.

Scientists said that background radiation would prove the
theory in four ways: (1) It would come from only one direction—the Big Bang
source. (2) It would have the right radiational strength to match the Big Bang
mathematical theory. (3) It would emit the proper spectrum. (4) It would not be
a smooth radiation.

But we find that, if this is the best evidence that the theorists can produce
for their speculation, it surely is weak.

1 - It is omnidirectional. Background radiation comes from
every direction instead of one. The Big Bang theory requires that it
come from only one direction—from where the Big Bang occurred. Since its
discovery, scientists have been unable to match its directional radiation (its
isotropy) with the Big Bang predictions. Its omnidirectionality tells
where the background radiation is coming from: "Background radiation" is
actually a slight amount of heat given off by stars throughout the universe.
Would they not be expected to emit a very faint amount of heat into outer space?

2 - The radiation does not fit the theory, for it is too
weak. It should be far more powerful than it is. *Fred Hoyle, a leading
20th-century astrophysicist, said it should have been much stronger.

3 - Background radiation lacks the proper spectrum.
It does not have the ideal "black body" (total light absorption) capacity which
would agree with the *Max Planck calculation. This radiation does not fit the
theoretical 2.7K black body spectrum required for the Big Bang theory.

4 - The spectrum should be far hotter than it is.
The heat emitted by the radiation should have a far higher temperature. The
radiation should emit a 100oK black body radiation
spectrum, which is far greater than the 2.73o K spectrum
it now has.

5 - Background radiation is too smooth. The theory
requires that it be much more irregular and "lumpy" (with "density
fluctuations") in order for it to explain how stars could be formed from the Big
Bang explosion. In recent years, some slight variations in smoothness have been
detected, but this is still not enough to fit the theory.

"It seems difficult to believe that, whereas visible
matter is conspicuously clumpy and clustered on all scales, the invisible
intergalactic gas is uniform and homogeneous."—*G. de Vaucouleurs, "The
Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology," Science 167, p. 1203.

"The problem was to reconcile the apparent evenness of the early expansion,
as indicated by the steady background radiation, with the observed large-scale
structures [stars, planets, etc.]. A perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would
have produced only an increasingly rarified [ever thinner] gas cloud."—*Peter
Pocock and *Pat Daniels, Galaxies (1988), p. 117.

6 - All of the above points (omnidirectionality, very
slight amount of heat, general smoothness, with radiative fluctuations in
strength) is what we would expect from radiational heat from the multiplied
billions of stars throughout the universe. It would be understandable
for all those stars to emit a slight amount of uniform, omnidirectional
radiative heat. And we would expect the radiational heat emitted by the stars
should, at great distances, show very slight fluctuations. Does not each one
send forth both heat and occasional gigantic solar flares into space? If you do
not believe stars emit heat into space, then you do not believe the sun keeps
you warm.

[2] THE REDSHIFT NOT EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG OR AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE

The fact—Relatively white light can be split by a
triangular prism of glass into all the colors of the rainbow. Using a
spectrometer, this can be done to starlight. Dark, vertical bands mark the
spectrum at various points. Analyzing these dark bands, the type of
elements in each star can be ascertained. Spectral type is a star’s
classification— based on its spectrum, surface temperature, and mass. A
spectrogram is a photograph of a star’s spectrum. Spectroscopy is the
study of spectra.

Ultraviolet is on one end of a spectrum and has a higher
frequency and shorter wavelength than visible blue light. Infrared is the
other end of the visible spectrum (astronomers call it "red").

Every star is redshifted to some extent (that is, the entire spectrum
of that star is moved toward the red end). The farther a star or galaxy is from
us, the more its light is shifted. This displacement is called the redshift.

The theory—The "Big Bangers" (as scientists call them)
theorize that this redshift shows that the universe is expanding outward from
the source of the Big Bang explosion. They base this on the hypothesis that
the "speed theory" of the redshift is the only cause of the redshift.
This means that if light is traveling toward us, the wavelength is
slightly compressed or shortened. This would cause the light to be
"blueshifted" (shifted toward the ultraviolet). If it is moving away from
us, the wavelength is stretched out, which causes a redshift (shifted toward
the infrared).

"This redshift, observed in the spectral lines of distant
galaxies and interpreted as a Doppler [speed] effect, is the key to
cosmology."—*Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p. 252.

What causes the redshift? It is quite obvious that the
distance of the star from us has something to do with the redshift. Here are
FOUR scientific explanations for the redshift,
each of which are accepted by various scientists:

• The Speed redshift (also called the
Doppler theory of redshift): This would occur if the star were moving
away from us. Evolutionists say all the stars are moving away from us,
and that there is no other cause for the recorded redshifts. But there are three
other possibilities:

• Gravitational redshifts:The pull of
gravity on light rays would cause a loss of energy in the beam of moving
light. In 1915, *Albert Einstein predicted that gravity could bend light—and
that it would cause a redshift. This was later proved to be true. As light
travels toward us from distant stars, it passes other stars, which slightly
slows the beam, causing its spectrum to shift toward the red.

"Einstein’s views of gravity led to the prediction that
light emitted by a source possessing a very strong gravitational field
should be displaced toward the red (the Einstein shift)."—*Isaac Asimov,
Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, p. 50.

Yet, in order to bolster their Big Bang and expanding universe theories,
evolutionists ignore gravitational, second-order Doppler, and energy-loss
shifts.

• Second-order Doppler shift:A light
source moving at right angles to an observer will always be redshifted.
This would occur if the universe were moving slowly in a vast circle around a
common center. We know that every body in the universe is orbiting and, at the
same time, moving in some direction with its orbital body. Much of that movement
is at right angles to us.

• Energy-loss shift:Light waves
could themselves directly lose energy as they travel across long distances.
This would nicely explain why the farthest stars from us have the most dramatic
redshifts. This is also called the tired-light redshift.

Big Bang theorists maintain that the speed redshift is the
ONLY cause of the redshift,—because they can then say that the universe is
expanding outward as a result of the Big Bang.

But the evidence reveals that the speed redshift theory—as
the ONLY cause of the redshift—is wrong:

1 - Nearly all the stars and galaxies are redshifted. This fact
agrees with the gravitational-loss, second-order Doppler, and energy-loss
redshifts. But, if only the speed theory is accepted as the cause of
this,—nearly all the universe is moving away from us—our planet!
A true expanding universe theory would mean that everything was moving outward
from a common center somewhere else, not from our planet. If the Big Bang
really occurred, the universe would be rushing outward from where the explosion
occurred,—not from our planet! Example: A bomb explodes in outer space,
hurling shrapnel in every direction. Some pieces would be flying in our
direction while others traveled in other directions. This differential could be
measured. Some pieces would be flying toward us, others sideways, and others
away from us. If there was a Big Bang, we could locate its origin by measuring
redshifts. But, instead, we only find evidence that everything in space
is redshifted; that is, everything is supposedly moving away from us.
This point disproves both the Big Bang and the expanding universe theory.

2 - The closest stars and galaxies are the least
redshifted, and some of the closest stars are actually moving toward us—yet
still seem redshifted. The farther that starlight has to travel before
reaching us, the more those two types of shifts would slow it.

3 - There is evidence that photons (light particles) do slow down.
This would be nicely explained by gravitational and energy-loss redshifts.

4 - Quasars strongly disprove the speed theory of redshift.
They are unknown objects which show drastically shifted spectrums
toward the red. Yet, if the speed theory is accepted as the cause of those
shifts, they would be at impossibly great distances from us. Some have
redshifts of 200 and 300 percent! This would equal distances up to 12 billion
light-years and recession (moving away from us) speeds exceeding 90 percent of
the speed of light! Many astronomers renounced the speed theory when they
learned this. But then came the discovery of quasars with even higher redshifts:
300-400 percent! Ultimately, they found three quasars which, according to the
speed theory, are moving faster than the speed of light! One of these is eight
times faster than the speed of light! In a desperate attempt to save their
theory, the evolutionists recalculated the "Hubble constant," which is the
formula for the speed of light. But they are unable to change it. Now they
really have a quandary on their hands! As *Vincent A. Ettari wrote, "An increase
of 100 percent in the Hubble constant would decrease the computed age of the
universe by 50 percent."—And the evolutionists cannot accept that!

5 - Light has weight. Some suggest that light and
gravity could not affect one another. But *Einstein was right: Light can be
pulled by gravity because it has weight. Because light has weight, it can be
pulled by matter and push it! Because light has weight, stars it passes
pull on it, slightly redshifting it.

"If a set of fine scales is arranged so that one scale is
kept dark, and light is allowed to fall on the other, the lighted scale will
sink slowly. Light has ‘weight.’ The pressure of light on the Earth’s
surface is calculated as two pounds per square mile [90 kg per 2.6 km 2]."—*Isaac
Asimov, Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979), p. 330.

6 - No one has ever seen a blue-shifted stellar light spectrum.
This nicely agrees with the alternate redshift theories (gravitational,
second-order Doppler, and energy-loss) of redshift. Even nearby stars, which
we think are moving toward us, are very slightly redshifted. But, if
thespeed theory is the only cause of redshifts, every star in the
universe is actually moving away from us!Why should we be the center
of this expanding universe?

On pages 67-68 of his book, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, *Isaac
Asimov, a confirmed evolutionist, lists 10 reasons why quasars do not agree with
the speed theory of light. (We quote that lengthy section on our website.)